Arbitration Weekly Digest 11th November-17 th November 2024

Supreme Court S. 11(6) A&C Act | Referral Courts Should Limit Its Enquiry To Prima Facie Existence Of Arbitration Agreement : Supreme Court Case Title: GOQII TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS SOKRATI TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED, Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 891 In a recent decision, the Supreme Court reiterated that the referral courts under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”) should refrain from conducting an in-depth factual analysis of the dispute. Instead, their role is confined to assessing the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement.High Courts Bombay High Court Party Can Waive Arbitrator's Ineligibility U/S 12(5) Of Arbitration Act By Express Agreement In Writing: Bombay High Court Case Title: M/S. TRULY PEST SOLUTION PRIVATE LIMITED VS. PRINCIPAL CHIEF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 583 The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Rajesh S. Patil affirmed that once an ineligibility to act as Arbitrator is waived by an express agreement in writing under proviso to section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act, waiving party is prohibited from claiming ineligibility of the Arbitrator for the first time under section 34 of the Arbitration Act. In this case, the petitioner had waived the ineligibility of the arbitrator by sending a signed letter. High Court As Court Of Record Can Recall Or Review Orders Passed U/S 11 Of Arbitration Act: Bombay High Court Case Title: Shailesh Ranka and others Vs. Windsor Machines Limited and another Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 585 The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Manish Pitale has held that the moment it becomes clear that the power under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act is being exercised by the “High Court” and not by an authority in the form of the “Chief Justice or any person or institution designated by him”, there can be no confusion about the fact that as a constitutional court and court of record, this Court can exercise power of review even in the context of order passed under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act. In this case, the court passed the impugned order in which application under section 11 of the Arbitration Act was dismissed by misconstruing the facts of the case. Calcutta High Court Award In Which Vital Evidence Are Not Considered Can Be Set Aside On Grounds Of Patent Illegality U/S 34: Calcutta HC Case Title: MINTECH GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED VS KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED – CEMENTDIVISION Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 237 The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya affirmed that there cannot be any quarrel with the proposition that if there is a perversity in the award insofar as the non-consideration of vital evidence is concerned, the same tantamounts to violation of the fundamental policy of Indian Law as well as gives rise to a patent illegality, which is a sufficient ground for interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Chhattisgarh High Court Enforcement Of Foreign Award Cannot Be Refused U/S 48 Of Arbitration Act Unless It Is Against Public Policy: Chhattisgarh HC Case Title: Bulk Trading S.A. Having versus Mahendra Sponge And Power Ltd. Case Reference: ARBAP No. 9 of 2023 and ARBAP No. 10 of 2023 The Chhattisgarh High Court bench of Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari has held that enforcement of a foreign award cannot be refused under section 48 of the Arbitration Act unless it is shown that the award is against the public policy of India. The court further observed that even during Covid-19 pandemic, the Banking Sector continued to provide essential services and in the Notification, said Sector is under exception, so the award(s) could not be said to be contrary to public policy of India. Delhi High Court Scope Of Review U/S 37 Is Limited To Ascertaining Compliance With S. 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court Case Title: Bharat Broadband Network Ltd v. Paramount Communications Ltd Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1222 The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Rekha Palli and Saurabh Banerjee affirmed that the Court under section 37 of the Arbitration Act cannot undertake an independent assessment of the merits of the award, and must only ascertain that the exercise of power by the Court under Section 34 has not exceeded the scope of the provision Inordinate, Unexplained Delay In Passing Award After Conclusion Of Arguments Can Be Ground To Set Aside U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court Case Title: HR BUILDERS THROUGH GPA HOLDER V. DELHI AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1223 The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that inordinate and unexplained delay in passing an award from the date of the conclusion of the pleadings can be a ground to set it aside under section 34 of the Arbitration Act. In this case, the award was passed after more than 2 years from...

Arbitration Weekly Digest 11th November-17 th November 2024

Mohd Talha Hasan

Tags